Judgment

BAHARUL ISLAM, J.:- The above appeals arise out of land acquisition proceeding and involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law. This common judgment, therefore, will dispose of all the three appeals. It will be sufficient, if we refer to the material facts of the Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 1978 only.

2. The land involved belonged to one Imam Khan as an occupancy tenant. Before the partition of India, he migrated to Pakistan, whereafter his rights in the lands were declared evacuee property. Subsequently, in pursuance of a notification issued under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the Central Government acquired the lessee rights. As a result of the notification, these rights vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The Central Government thereafter sold these rights by auctions in August/September, 1962. The first respondent purchased a plot of land for a sum of Rs. 21,700. He deposited the entire amount with the Managing Officer. Evacuee Property, Agra. A Sale Certificate was issued to him on September 12, 1962.

3. It appears that one Ramlal Lamba was in the possession of the land in question. He was asked by the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, to vacate the land, and deliver possession to the first respondent. Instead of delivering possession of the land to the first respondent Lamba, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court at Delhi. The writ petition was dismissed on 4-12-1969. He then filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 2-2-1970. He then filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Agra, for restraining the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property, from interfering in his possession. Thus the first respondent could not get possession of the land.

4. After the auction sale, the State of U. P. (respondent No. 2 herein) filed a suit under Section 171 of U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter the Tenancy Act) against the Custodian of the Evacuee Property, and the four auction-purchasers including the first respondent, for possession. This suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, an 24-3-1969 on the ground that it was not maintainable. An appeal was filed. This was also dismissed on 24-10-1970. Thus before the petitioner could obtain possession of the land, the Collector of Agra (respondent No. 3 herein) issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter the Act) on March 1, 1970, notifying that the plots in dispute (and several other plots) were intended to be acquired by the State Government for construction of residential houses for the members of the General Servants Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Agra, the appellant before us. The first respondent did not have any knowledge or information of the said notification under Section 4 of the Act and so he did not, as he could not, file any objection under Section 5A of the Act. The notification under Sec. 4 was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act on May 4, 1973. After the said notifications, proceedings relating to determination of compensation for the lands were started. In that connection the first respondent was served with a notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act. calling upon him to prefer his claim for compensation. Thereupon the first respondent filed objections, but before the objections were disposed of he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court allowed the writ petition and struck down the notification dated 5th May, 1973, under Section 6 of the Act. The High Court held that as the acquisition was made by the State Government for the benefit of a co-operative society, it could do so only after complying with the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act, and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called the Rules), but as the State Government did not do so, there was a breach of the principle of natural justice. Repelling th